E
PCT/MIA/21/20
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH ONLY
DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2014
Meeting of International Authorities
under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)
Twenty-First Session
Tel Aviv, February 11 to 13, 2014
TRANSLATION OF ABSTRACTS AND REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL
APPLICATIONS
Document prepared by the International Bureau
SUMMARY
1.
This document discusses the translation of abstracts, international search reports and
international preliminary reports on patentability concerning international applications. The
translations are important for designated Offices, third parties and patent information purposes
and need to be provided in a timely but cost-effective way.
2.
The International Bureau (IB) seeks to raise awareness of the factors which affect the
quality, timeliness and ease of providing these translations. While such matters should not
directly drive the development of the system, the costs involved are large and need to be taken
into account in efforts to improve the efficiency and utility of the system. International
Authorities are invited to consider whether action can be taken that would contribute to the
reduction of the cost of translation at the IB while improving, or at least not reducing, the quality
of service provided to the end users of the translations.
BACKGROUND
3.
The IB is required to translate all abstracts, including any text matter appearing in the
reference drawing, and titles of international applications so they are made available in both
English and French. The IB is also required to translate all international search reports and
international preliminary reports on patentability (IPRP) (whether established under Chapter I or
II) into English if this is not the original language of the report.
PCT/MIA/21/20
page 2
4.
The titles, abstracts and international search reports are supposed to be included in the
international publication. The international application will need to be republished if the
translation is not available in time, or if an abstract is modified too late for the revised version to
be included in the original international publication. The international preliminary reports on
patentability and the translations thereof are intended to be available at 30 months from the
priority date, with the possibility of designated or elected Offices requesting early translations
(where relevant, of the written opinion of the International Searching Authority rather than the
IPRP) in cases where the applicant enters the national phase early.
5.
The rise in the number of international applications filed and the larger share of
applications in the Asian languages have resulted in an increasing workload on the IB to
produce these translations. In order to meet the growing demands with timely delivery of
abstracts and reports and flexibility to accommodate possibly changing future needs, the IB
outsources the translation of a growing proportion of abstracts and reports.
Abstracts and Titles
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
In-house Outsourced
82,247
123,638
55,840
158,313
44,304
171,978
22,888
180,572
24,372
209,099
34,062
230,733
Total
Share of outsourced
205,885
60%
214,153
74%
216,282
80%
203,460
89%
233,471
90%
264,795
87%
In-house Outsourced
4,516
40,384
3,133
45,676
2,067
46,483
1,173
54,103
942
61,654
2,098
76,357
Total
Share of outsourced
44,900
90%
48,809
94%
48,550
96%
55,276
98%
62,596
98%
78,455
97%
Reports
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Figure 1: Volume of Translations (source: PCT Yearly Review, 2013)
6.
Figure 1 shows the total number of abstracts (including titles and drawings) and
international search and preliminary examination reports (“reports”) translated since 2007, along
with the share of outsourced translations. The numbers are increasing both as absolute figures
and as a proportion of international applications. Significant increases occurred during this
period as a result of the addition of Portuguese and, especially, Korean as languages of
publication in 2009. In addition, international applications have increased significantly in
Japanese and Chinese. The number of documents translated in 2012 increased significantly
compared to 2011. In 2012, 264,975 abstracts and 78,455 reports were translated, an annual
growth of 13.4 per cent and 25.3 per cent, respectively. External agencies and translators
produce 87.1 per cent of translations of abstracts and 97.3 per cent of translations of reports.
Many of these translations have to be produced over a tight timescale in order to be available
for international publication at 18 months from the priority date of the application or to
designated Offices at 30 months from the priority date.
7.
A small but significant and increasing proportion of international preliminary reports on
patentability need to be translated early as a result of early national phase entry. The time
constraints involved put a strain on internal resources and the unpredictable nature of early
national phase entry requests makes planning difficult.
PCT/MIA/21/20
page 3
8.
To deal with the rising demand for translations, the IB has made efforts to improve the
efficiency of operations and the quality of both internally and externally-produced translations.
In terms of quality, the PCT Translation Service applies a comprehensive quality control
procedure to translations produced by all suppliers and provides regular feedback to suppliers,
as well as to Offices when recurrent errors occur in the original files. In terms of operational
efficiency, the Translation Service is increasingly applying document-streaming techniques that
allow applications of a similar nature to be identified and translated in the most cost-effective
manner. In 2012, the IB introduced a modernized translation environment for its internal
translators to enable the reuse of past translations and more effective utilization of terminology.
In addition, a further Translation Management System principally for handling translations
carried out by external agencies was introduced at the end of 2013 and will be extended to
additional agencies and translators throughout 2014. This will ensure secure and flexible
workflow automation and improve translation quality. Structural improvements have also been
made to the tendering process for translation suppliers to enhance and diversify the supplier
network with agencies capable of providing cost-effective quality translation. Furthermore, the
IB has also continued to develop its multilingual terminology database to improve the
consistency and the quality of translations, with priority being placed on adding terms in
languages underrepresented in the database
9.
The actions of receiving Offices (ROs), International Searching and Preliminary
Examination Authorities (ISA/IPEAs) and applicants also influence the delivery of translations by
the IB. Offices and applicants can therefore contribute towards timely production of translations
of abstracts and reports. This document discusses this issue in detail, especially with regard to
ISA/IPEAs.
ABSTRACTS
TIME OF TRANSMITTING INTERNATIONAL SEARCH REPORTS
10. Because translations may be needed into both French and English, the majority of
abstracts undergo a relay translation process whereby translation into English is then followed
by translation into French. For this reason, the initial translation into English needs to be sent
out no later than 10 weeks before the due date for publication. The IB therefore relies on
receiving the final version of the abstract (modified by the ISA under Rule 38.2 if necessary)
with the international search report before this date. If a modified version of the abstract arrives
after this time, the abstract will require additional in-house work to modify the translation of the
original abstract or, in some cases, a full re-translation, resulting in additional or double the cost
to the IB. Similarly, the IB cannot be sure of the figure of the drawings to accompany the
abstract until it receives the international search report.
PCT/MIA/21/20
page 4
Figure 2: Time of receipt of ISR or Article 17(2)(a) declaration compared to normal
publication date (ISRs and declarations received by IB in 2013); axis at -10 weeks shows
time by which ISRs are needed for most efficient translation processing
11. As can be seen, a large proportion of international search reports are received in good
time to allow efficient translation processes for the international search report and abstracts.
However, a large number – and in some languages, a large proportion – are not, even though
the ISA may have delivered the ISR within the time limit specified in Rule 42.
12. Rule 42 requires the ISA to establish the report within three months from the receipt of the
search copy, or nine months from the priority date, whichever time limit expires later. For most
applications, the former time limit will apply. This target is already ambitious for most ISAs,
particularly in cases such as where a lack of unity of invention is found, requiring a month or
more to be consumed in communications with the applicant. Consequently, the most practical
ways of bringing forward the delivery of international search reports seem to be to improve the
timeliness of transmission of search copies from the RO and to encourage electronic
communication with applicants to minimize delays in those cases where correspondence is
necessary. Document PCT/MIA/21/2 considers ways in which ePCT and related online systems
could help in this area.
13. Overall, for the international applications for which the IB has data concerning the receipt
of the search copy, the average times from the filing date to the date of receipt of the search
copy is 20.1 days for cases where the ISA is the same Office as the RO and 33.9 days for
cases where the Offices are different. However, hidden within these averages are many
variations in distribution of times between RO-ISA pairs.
14. There is insufficient data available to the International Bureau to determine reliably the
extent to which the longer delays in transmission are a result of slow processing by the
receiving Office, long transmission delays due to posting paper search copies or, alternatively,
factors such as late payment of the search fee by the applicant. It would be desirable if
receiving Offices could review their own performance and procedures in terms of delivering
search copies and identify actions which could be taken to improve performance and encourage
applicants to minimize delays attributable to the need for payment of fees or other forms of
applicant action after filing.
PCT/MIA/21/20
page 5
TEXT IN FIGURE ACCOMPANYING THE ABSTRACT
15. Rule 11.11 states that “the drawings shall not contain text matter, except a single word or
words, when absolutely indispensable”. In the case of drawings containing electric circuits, or
block schematic or flow sheet diagrams, “a few short catchwords indispensable for
understanding” may be included. There is also a requirement to place any words used so that,
if translated, they may be pasted over without interfering with any lines of the drawings.
16. Drawings in applications often do not meet this requirement, particularly block or flow
sheet diagrams. This creates additional translation work when there is excessive text on the
figure selected to accompany the abstract. In certain languages, the text on this figure, after
translation into English, regularly exceeds 250 words, even extending to over 1000 words in
extreme cases. Since this text is generally not a repetition of text in the abstract, but instead
comes from the explanation of the selected figure in the description, the total text requiring
translation is more than double the desirable maximum of 150 words for the abstract.
17. Under Rule 26.3, the RO is required to check an international application for compliance
with the physical requirements in Rule 11 only to the extent that compliance is necessary for
reasonably uniform international publication or satisfactory reproduction. ROs therefore have
neither the power nor the technical expertise to verify whether the text matter included in the
drawings is indispensable for understanding. Moreover, once a non-compliant figure has been
filed, it will be difficult for the problem to be corrected without modifying the description as well
as the drawings in a manner such that it would not be reasonable to ask a formalities examiner
to judge whether the correction truly reflected the international application as filed and did not
add subject matter.
18. By contrast, action from ISAs could contribute towards reducing the problem of excessive
text in the drawings that require translation. For example, where this problem exists in the
figure(s) selected by the applicant to accompany the abstract, under Rule 8.2(a), the ISA could
select an alternative figure to accompany the abstract that complies with Rule 11.11. The ISA
can also decide under Rule 8.2(b) that the abstract should be published without an
accompanying figure if none of the drawings in the application is useful for understanding the
abstract. A drawing should not be included with the abstract merely because it has been
suggested by the applicant.
19. Nevertheless, in many cases, a figure with large amounts of text will in fact be the one
which best represents the invention. Given the difficulty in enforcing Rule 11.11, it is not clear
how this problem can be overcome. It does not appear practical to charge an additional fee,
noting that the figure to be used is not known until the ISA has confirmed it and the number of
words when translated into English or French (which is the usual basis for costs based on
volume) is only known after translation.
INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY REPORTS ON PATENTABLITY
20. Along with the rise in the number of reports translated (see paragraph 6, above) their
average length has also increased in recent years. This adds to translation costs and affects
timely delivery of high quality translations.
2011*
2012
2013
German Spanish French Portuguese Russian Japanese Korean
606
n/a
578
n/a
n/a
400
521
621
630
665
675
476
428
550
632
648
663
628
452
428
628
Chinese
900
1185
1232
Figure 3: Length in words of the IPRPs after translation into English, by original language.
(*) figures for some languages are not available for 2011 due to the way in which invoices
were submitted by suppliers at that time.
PCT/MIA/21/20
page 6
21.
Since 2011, the International Bureau has been monitoring the average word count per
language combination of international preliminary reports on patentability after translation into
English. As shown in Figure 3, above, this average has risen since 2011 for reports established
in most languages, and there are significant variations between Authorities.
22. Reports that are clear and concise are not only more straightforward to translate, but are
also easier to understand by the applicant and third parties. The IB intends to discuss the
preparation of reports with Authorities whose reports are longer than average and have recently
increased significantly in length. International Authorities are also invited to provide views on
what further guidance could be provided for drawing up written opinions and international
preliminary reports on patentability to facilitate translation into English. This could include
recommendations on writing style such as short sentences, avoiding unnecessary repetition,
and consistent use by an International Authority of general expressions in reports. The
discussions on use of standardized clauses could contribute to this process.
FORMAT OF DOCUMENTS
23. Most international search reports, written opinions and international preliminary
examination reports are still received by the IB in image-based format or on paper. The
efficiency of translation would be significantly increased if the translators had access to a
text-based version of the documents. This could be Annex F-compliant XML, as some
International Authorities are currently preparing systems to produce. It could alternatively be
any major word processor format.
24. International search reports in particular are highly structured documents with many parts
which do not require translation at all, or which are representations of simple data in ways which
involve mere replacement of one standard text with another. If the international search reports
were received in text formats (preferably, but not necessarily XML) which allowed the different
parts to be reliably identified by machine, some international search reports might not require
human translation and, for the others, costs could be reduced by reliably identifying those small
number of words which required human translation.
25. Where reports are received on paper, the International Bureau will frequently attempt to
perform optical character recognition (OCR) to retrieve the text. However, not only is this a
source of additional work which could apparently be avoided in most cases, but it is also in
some cases impossible because OCR is extremely unreliable with the very small fonts used in
reports by some International Authorities.
POSSIBLE ACTION
26. Translation is an important service in ensuring that the PCT system is effective for
designated Offices, third parties and patent information purposes. Although it is an ancillary
service which should not drive overall policy, it is a major cost of running the system, which
needs to be managed well and needs to be taken into account in the operation of the system,
along with many other factors.
27. As such, the International Bureau is not presently suggesting any review of the time limits
or principles of processing, but seeks the assistance of ROs, ISAs and applicants in ways such
as:
(a)
reducing RO processing times and ISA backlogs where reasonably possible;
(b)
timely payment and processing of fees;
(c) supporting services, such as ePCT, which reduce transmission delays (both
applicant to Office and Office to Office) and provide higher quality information to assist
processing by other Offices;
PCT/MIA/21/20
page 7
(d) reviewing standard clauses and guidelines on drafting written opinions to reduce
their length, to the extent that this does not adversely affect the quality of the opinions;
(e) seeking stricter compliance with Rule 11.11 (Words in Drawings) at least for the
drawings accompanying abstracts;
(f)
prioritizing work towards providing machine-readable versions of international
search reports, written opinions, international preliminary reports on patentability and
associated matter such as revised abstracts.
28. The International Bureau continues to study this area and hopes to find ways in which
translations can be delivered effectively for the needs of their target audiences in more efficient
and cost-effective ways.
29.
The Meeting is invited to
comment on the issues set out in this
document.
[End of document]